The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

KnightExemplar wrote:Its hard for me to make a judgment without being there.

Then how about you shut the fuck up and listen to people who were there?

Maybe you've seen a Nazi-dude actually armed with a long-rifle though? So if you got a picture, I'd be glad to change my opinion.

For now, I can't tell if it was one of those "Oathkeeper" dudes or not.

You do know multiple armed far-right militias were there, right? I don't know if I've seen pictures of paramilitary fucks with literal swastikas on their gear, but Confederate flags and other white supremacist symbology was fairly ubiquitous.

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

Are you being sarcastic or are you on drugs right now?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

Hey remember on the school yard when a bully would punch you, and grab you, and so you'd swat him off and struggle to get free and then you'd both get suspended for fighting?

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

The problem is that Trump pointed out that the violence came from "many sides" immediately after a Neo-Nazi rammed into a crowd of people and murdered a woman. Only one side literally lost lives in this case.

From a moralistic point of view, you have to keep this in mind. If you are on the right, you have to remember that the right was the side that literally drew blood. For the President to then come out and try to make this an "all sides" issue when a woman is literally dead and 19 others have life-and-limb threatened by the moving car is incredibly tone deaf.

-----------

I can recognize that said murderer does not fully represent the viewpoints of the entire alt-right. But the alt-right needs to recognize that one of their own drew blood here.

natraj wrote:y'all know they were just parading around in the streets with semi automatics, right? at occasions aiming them directly at people who were standing and praying? also beating and murdering people? but thank god they weren't hiding any, just openly threatening people in the streets with them, if they had other guns they weren't using then we might find new ridiculous excuses for these genocidal murderers get serious.

I dunno about that.[a bunch of equivocation about whether the armed militias were right-wing or not]

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

From a moralistic point of view, you have to keep this in mind. If you are on the right, you have to remember that the right was the side that literally drew blood. For the President to then come out and try to make this an "all sides" issue when a woman is literally dead and 19 others have life-and-limb threatened by the moving car is incredibly tone deaf.

-----------

I can recognize that said murderer does not fully represent the viewpoints of the entire alt-right. But the alt-right needs to recognize that one of their own drew blood here.

They also rather severely beat a man. There's video of him being cornered, surrounded, and beaten while he's trying to flee. Even if nazis weren't *inherently* violent and they weren't throwing the first punch by advocating genocide, they still did nearly all of the non-defensive violence. Fuck off with this false equivalency, y'all.

@ke, i was there, i have stated i was there, maybe you should stay on top of posts if you want to participate in a discussion.

i was there treating patients while nazis with various white supremacist insignia up to and including swastikas shouted racist and antisemitic hate at us, i was there while nazis wielding semi automatics both paraded around with them and aimed them at us, i was there while the police watched nazis charging a group of praying protesters outside a church and beat them bloody, i was there while the cops interfered with medics giving treatment (when two minutes before they'd stood back and watched the beating), i was there while nazis ran over a peaceful march that at the moment wasn't even confronting nazis.

y'all sound like willfully aggressive nazi sympathizers the harder you try bending over backwards with reasons why all this is Not That Bad (i don't even want to touch the actual evil that is the Both Sides Are Just As Bad crap when we're talking about people calling for genocide while violently threatening and attacking folks.)

for the record i was there as a medic, providing care, but im sure there's also some specious logic as to why i am Just As Bad as the nazis by some of this thread logic.

for the record plenty of antifa kids put their asses on the line to stand between my black body and nazis with guns screaming death wishes at me so i could treat patients and to escort me safely through the streets while armed nazis roamed looking for niggers and Jews to bash, but hey they're all the same.

y'all stay doing the most.

You want to know the future, love? Then wait:I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

Belial wrote:"White nationalism" is a weasel term. It's inherently eliminationalist and it relies for camouflage on you not thinking too hard about it and assuming they haven't either.

There has never been a "<nation> for <ethnic group> only!" movement that didn't come down to, in practice, violent, murderous removal. The native American genocide is a best-case, historically.

So... are you saying all white nationalists are Nazis?

All white nationalists are genocidal racists, but I guess if you want to split hairs they may not all technically be Nazis.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

That comment was something you posted in response to natraj, which I thought would have been fairly obvious by the little "natraj wrote" at the top of the quote.

Yes. And I wrote that comment before I understood natraj was at the protest. My concerns are aired and if he / she thinks I'm wrong about an issue I'm all ears to listen. But I'm not going to "take a comment back" before natraj has had a chance to respond.

If Natraj has an issue with my post, I'm sure I'll hear from it soon. And I'll keep the fact that they were at the protest in mind in my next posts.

If Natraj has a problem with my post, I'd like to hear it from them. As stated earlier, I'll take the opinions of people at the event more seriously.

My intention in pointing this out was not to drag natraj further into this argument. They've done enough, they don't need to argue with Nazi sympathizers on the internet. My point was that y'all should maybe stop ignoring it when they do talk.

MartianInvader wrote:So... are you saying all white nationalists are Nazis?

That comment was something you posted in response to natraj, which I thought would have been fairly obvious by the little "natraj wrote" at the top of the quote.

Yes. And I wrote that comment before I understood natraj was at the protest.

Not my fault you haven't paid attention to the discussion you're participating in.

You said "I dunno about that" to a firsthand account, based on your vague recollection of some pictures you saw and your misunderstanding of what the Oathkeepers are. So I wondered if, in light of the fact that it was a firsthand account you might want to reconsider your misplaced skepticism.

If Natraj has an issue with my post, I'm sure I'll hear from it soon. And I'll keep the fact that they were at the protest in mind in my next posts.

Natraj has already responded. Did so before I did, in fact.

Fuck's sake pay some attention here.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

Hey remember on the school yard when a bully would punch you, and grab you, and so you'd swat him off and struggle to get free and then you'd both get suspended for fighting?

Remember how stupid that was?

That's you. That's what you sound like

You are giving antifa way too much credit. They have a track record of initiating violence at right wing events.

natraj wrote:@ke, i was there, i have stated i was there, maybe you should stay on top of posts if you want to participate in a discussion.

This thread is moving incredibly quickly right now. Apologies for missing out. BTW: I missed this post... if you "quote" me, it will show up as a "Notification" and it makes it easier for me to see direct responses.

i was there treating patients while nazis with various white supremacist insignia up to and including swastikas shouted racist and antisemitic hate at us, i was there while nazis wielding semi automatics both paraded around with them and aimed them at us, i was there while the police watched nazis charging a group of praying protesters outside a church and beat them bloody, i was there while the cops interfered with medics giving treatment (when two minutes before they'd stood back and watched the beating), i was there while nazis ran over a peaceful march that at the moment wasn't even confronting nazis.

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

Hey remember on the school yard when a bully would punch you, and grab you, and so you'd swat him off and struggle to get free and then you'd both get suspended for fighting?

Remember how stupid that was?

That's you. That's what you sound like

You are giving antifa way too much credit. They have a track record of initiating violence at right wing events.

Nazis incite violence by having events in the first place. That's kind of inherent to their existence as Nazis.

And regardless of (your ideas about) antifa's history, the actual factual sequence of events this past weekend pretty clearly show you're full of shit.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

The mainstream media has been glossing over the actions of their opposition. People on both sides came out for a fight, but the media only want to concentrate on the violence coming from one side, tacitly absolving the likes of antifa for their crimes. And when Trump points out that the violence and hatred was coming "from many sides", he's painted as a potential nazi sympathiser. Seems like fake news to me.

Hey remember on the school yard when a bully would punch you, and grab you, and so you'd swat him off and struggle to get free and then you'd both get suspended for fighting?

Remember how stupid that was?

That's you. That's what you sound like

You are giving antifa way too much credit. They have a track record of initiating violence at right wing events.

I'm sure that there's some history going on here. But I think the events of last Saturday are what is on everyone's minds right now. It sounds like we have some people who were on the left-side sharing their viewpoints of last Saturday.

I honestly haven't found much information that described the protests from the "right" point of view. I've got some articles from Vice / Washington Post and stuff (where the reporters did embed themselves in the White Supremist side and reported on what they saw... but IMO Vice / WashPo are liberal organizations).

SlyReaper: do you know of any reports written on the "Right" side that documents this left-wing violence? Frankly speaking, all the reports I've seen are pretty one-sided. Only Trump seems to be suggesting this was a "both sides" problem.

There are hundreds of them, but then you'd have to admit you're getting your news from places like Stormfront.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:There are hundreds of them, but then you'd have to admit you're getting your news from places like Stormfront.

Yeah... I'm ignoring those obviously.

Why would that be obvious? You're making an effort to hear from "both sides" where one side is Nazis.

Where else would you expect to find their side?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:There are hundreds of them, but then you'd have to admit you're getting your news from places like Stormfront.

Yeah... I'm ignoring those obviously.

Why would that be obvious? You're making an effort to hear from "both sides" where one side is Nazis.

Where else would you expect to find their side?

Well, its a wide variety of subgroups actually and not just Nazis. The nominal point of the protest was to protect a Confederate Statue. That's a cause I disagree with but I support the right of the "southern heritage" people to rally and make their point (so long as they keep it peaceful. Which they didn't)

But in any case, I asked SlyReaper the question. I want to know what sources he's basing his opinion on.

KnightExemplar wrote:↶The nominal point of the protest was to protect a Confederate Statue.

And the people who showed up to do that were Nazis. And really they showed up to be violent, as evidenced by the fact that that was the first thing they did, the night before the nominal "protect our treason participation trophy" protest.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Quercus wrote:When you're hiding weapons caches and outgunning the national guard you're not a protest group, you're an insurgency. An insurgency still "testing the waters", but an insurgency all the same.

You know, you certainly represent what the alt right would like to do. If that door were actually opened the US would almost certainly end up at war with itself. I would just as soon not live in Syria, with Nuclear weapons.

Angua wrote:Like, again, show us the majority group of non-hateful Nazis who are around and actually doing wonderful things with their lives and are ashamed of their fanatic brethren. Once you demonstrate them then maybe you get to compare them to Muslims, but only maybe.

It's called the majority of white people. The complement to White Supremacist is the White people. Nazi's were first White Germans and then Nazi. White Supremacists are first White people. To you, I'm a Nazi you haven't identified yet. Can you understand how that might make me feel?

Angua wrote:Like, again, show us the majority group of non-hateful Nazis who are around and actually doing wonderful things with their lives and are ashamed of their fanatic brethren. Once you demonstrate them then maybe you get to compare them to Muslims, but only maybe.

It's called the majority of white people.

But no one was comparing white people to Muslims, he was comparing Nazis to Muslims.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Quercus wrote:When you're hiding weapons caches and outgunning the national guard you're not a protest group, you're an insurgency. An insurgency still "testing the waters", but an insurgency all the same.

You know, you certainly represent what the alt right would like to do. If that door were actually opened the US would almost certainly end up at war with itself. I would just as soon not live in Syria, with Nuclear weapons.

Angua wrote:Like, again, show us the majority group of non-hateful Nazis who are around and actually doing wonderful things with their lives and are ashamed of their fanatic brethren. Once you demonstrate them then maybe you get to compare them to Muslims, but only maybe.

It's called the majority of white people. The complement to White Supremacist is the White people. Nazi's were first White Germans and then Nazi. White Supremacists are first White people. To you, I'm a Nazi you haven't identified yet. Can you understand how that might make me feel?

You know who sees all white people as secretly white supremacists who haven't realized it yet?

Angua wrote:Like, again, show us the majority group of non-hateful Nazis who are around and actually doing wonderful things with their lives and are ashamed of their fanatic brethren. Once you demonstrate them then maybe you get to compare them to Muslims, but only maybe.

It's called the majority of white people. The complement to White Supremacist is the White people. Nazi's were first White Germans and then Nazi. White Supremacists are first White people. To you, I'm a Nazi you haven't identified yet. Can you understand how that might make me feel?

Um, if that's really how you see it, then I have some bad news to break to you...

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”

Like, morriswalters, you're arguing with quite a few white or white passing people who aren't afraid of being mistaken for nazis because we don't go around acting like nazis. Do you get why your "think how scared my poor white self must be" is maybe not an argument that lands?

I mean, I suppose one of us might look similar enough to one of the Nazis at the rally that we could be mistaken for them by overzealous doxxers.

But even then it's not something I'm terribly afraid of because one look at my online presence (plus where I physically was last weekend) makes it pretty clear to anyone whose opinion I care about that I am not, in fact, a secret Nazi.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Netreker0 wrote:Well, considering that I never accused you of the ad hominem fallacy, as YOU were the one who asserted, I didn't have the strict definition on hand and was trying to articulate it from memory. However, since you find it so important to clarify, why don't you state the articulation of the statement that you find more accurate for everyone's edification?

"You're an idiot" is not an ad hominem. "You're an idiot, therefore you are wrong" is an ad hominem. It's the 'therefore' that makes it fallacious. Insulting someone is just insulting them.

No. An ad hominem is a personal attack. An ad hominem fallacy is the wrongful belief that attacking the person invalidates the argument. Before you get pedantic, check your work.

I'm not sure if I have the energy to bring you two more examples? It's tiring to read through your posts and try to figure out what on earth you think I think.

You're the one who made the assertion about what I allegedly think. I'm of the belief that if I'm going to make a sweeping general assertion about someone (i.e., if I'm going to say something like "almost all") I should probably have a couple of supporting examples in mind without having to think to hard. If I can't, it's usually a good idea if that sweeping assertion is something I really want to say.

Fair point about Germany, however. I thought you were the one who raised the issue of "countries that specifically ban fascists, the Nazi party, and overt support" of them, and from that inferred that you might care about Germany, arguably the well-known example of a modern liberal democracy that does that. However, I was also responding to someone else, so perhaps he was the one raising that issue, and I just got my wires crossed. If so, apologies.

Netreker0 wrote:No. An ad hominem is a personal attack. An ad hominem fallacy is the wrongful belief that attacking the person invalidates the argument. Before you get pedantic, check your work.

Wikipedia wrote:Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Emphasis mine.

'Ad hominem' is not a synonym for 'personal attack'. It's a personal attack in lieu of an argument. It's targeting the speaker rather than the speaker's words -- hence the Latin ("to the man"). "You are a moron" is not an ad hominem; it's just a personal attack. "You are wrong because you are a moron" is an ad hominem.

Netreker0 wrote:Fair point about Germany, however. I thought you were the one who raised the issue of "countries that specifically ban fascists, the Nazi party, and overt support" of them, and from that inferred that you might care about Germany, arguably the well-known example of a modern liberal democracy that does that. However, I was also responding to someone else, so perhaps he was the one raising that issue, and I just got my wires crossed. If so, apologies.

Okay. I think you got your wires crossed during a the majority of your dialogue toward me? Because that German conversation is how most of your posts directed toward me read. Like you skimmed my post, skimmed someone else's posts, combined them, then wrote a reply based on this new imaginary post and directed it toward me. I can't address half your shit because you seem to be having a completely different conversation (one where you think I'm throwing out 'indignant straw man' asides and somehow manage to confuse thought experiments about morality with personal attacks against you).

Like, I get that you're probably trying to meet me half way here, but the fact is that at no point during this dialogue have I felt like you've actually put aside your bullshit, strapped on your big boy pants, and tried to have an adult conversation with me.

Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

The groups were basically a bunch of CEOs who were invited in by Trump, but after this past week they felt it too horrible to stay with Trump. A few others (like Elon Musk) dropped out way earlier due to other issues (ie: Paris Climate Accord cancellation). After a ton of dropouts the past few days, Trump stemmed the bleeding and is basically closing down those two groups of CEOs.

On the one hand, its a good rebuke of Trump. On the other hand, it means that Trump is now increasingly isolated away from decent people. Maybe Kelly is the last decent advisor who has Trumps ear...

KnightExemplar wrote:On the one hand, its a good rebuke of Trump. On the other hand, it means that Trump is now increasingly isolated away from decent people. Maybe Kelly is the last decent advisor who has Trumps ear...

General Kelly? The pro-Guantanamo Bay guy? He strikes me as competent, but I never figured him for 'decent'.

Honestly, though -- I don't think it would matter if you filled every position around Trump with every member of the Justice League. Not even Flash's 'vibrating molecules' bullshit could fix this.

The last time they met was in what, April? I don't think they were doing much of anything. And yeah, like Hippo and others have said, it's not Bannon, its not Kushner, it's not Miller - it's Trump.

Hope Hicks is interim communications director, now.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.